The Implied Pre-Genesis Ice Age & It's Interesting Implications

As I've been thinking about global warming, et al, it occured to me that the Genesis record implicates a pre-Genesis ice age for the earth and possibly some of the Solar System's planets which once had or which presently have ice on them.Genesis 1:1 simply says that whenever planet earth was made, God made it. It does not specifically state the it was made on day one. It does say that on day one, God, via his Holy Spirit began to make decreasing entropic improvements/modifications, if you will, upon the void, dark and formless planet, beginning with the introduction of light upon the earth. It also says that the Holy Spirit began to move upon the waters of the formless void planet.Then on day two, God separates the waters from the waters, dividing the waters into two locations, the waters above the firmament from the waters below the firmament, i.e. the vaporized airborne waters from the liquid surface waters.The implications that come to mind from the above are:1. That the dark void planet, having no light, was cold and totally frozen, including all the waters of planet earth.2. That the energetic light which the Holy Spirit effected upon the planet likely melted all the water on the planet, i.e, that a complete ongoing global ice age prevailed upon the planet from the time of it's creation by God until day one of Genesis one when it all melted.The Genesis account also states that it wasn't until day four that the sun was created, i.e, that the earth was created before the sun. This statement implies the following:1. That if the other planets were also created before the sun, any waters present upon them before day four of Genesis had no heat or light to melt them and were ice as well.2. That after the sun was created on day four any water on the other planets began a melting process to a lesser or greater extent, depending on their distance from the sun.3. That this could, I say, could explain why there has been some evidence of melting ice/global warming on some of the planets of the Solar System.This thead concerns the pre-Genesis earth, though polar ice caps would be implied by a global flood subsequent to the 6 days of creation. Comments about the post flood ice caps are ok here when applicable to the topic, but the thread topic is not about the Biblical post flood earth.What thoughts, remarks, musings, and arguments concerning the above might you have concerning the above?Edited to add that imo, since the part of the sun's function was to effect the 24 hour days, all days/evenings and mornings before day five were of an undetermined length or period of time.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 03-12-2005 23:27 AM

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

BuzNeed some help figuring out where this could rasonably go. It's certainly not a science question so it doesn't fit in any of the science forums, it has nothing to do with Evolution or Creationism so it won't fit in any of them.How would you feel about putting it in Faith and Belief even though it's really not even relevant there?I'm trying to figure a way to get this promoted but it looks like either the Coffee House or maybe Faith and Belief would be about the only places it could fit. Which would be your choice?

---

Hi Jar. Faith and Belief is ok, though it's my science hypothesis, as a creationist, for the original ice age. I know any implication of the supernatural cancels out science aspects of threads here and I've gotten use to that. No problem. Thanks for taking care of it.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 03-14-2005 08:30 PM

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

i think that's misinterpretting the intentions of the authors.genesis starts with a neutral element: water. had they wanted to say ice, they would have. there is no textual basis for their understanding of the solar system. quite the contrary. there are plants before a sun. it stands to reason then that absence of the sun in no way means an ice age.what you're doing is trying to fit a text to reality. and it doesn't work. the people who wrote the book did not see the world through the eyes of modern science, and it's a mistake to try to rectify their position with it.it's also especially a mistake because the redactor failed to rectify the textual sources with one another. genesis 1 and 2 are totally in the opposite order, and it's NOT just a matter of emphasis. what this tells me is that they didn't care about accuracy of the text, because there was something about them more important than the sum of their details. they didn't care about reality, they care about what the story said.so your focus is a little misguided.

The details are not given. It would be assumed that the light came from the power of God's omnipotent Holy Spirit moving upon the waters which would be ice in total darkness and would have melted by the power of God who's spirit was present. The presence of the Holy Spirit implies light and heat energy. Your premise, imo, is a strawman. The plants, as per text were created on day three before the sun was created. 1. The Bible claims to be inspired by God. The Biblical authors didn't know about television either, but it is clearly implied in Revelation 14, Revelation 19, and elsewhere in the Bible when all nations are able to view an event in one location of the planet, as I've shown in another thread.2. I'm not saying emphatically that the solar system's other planets were created then, but that it was a possibility and may account for the global warming detected on some of them.3. Guess what? I just happened to be reading in II Kings a couple of days ago, during my daily Bible reading and I read this, about righteous King Josiah's reign at Jerusalem. II Kings 23:5: And he put down the idolatrous priests, whom the kings of Judah had ordained to burn incense in the high places in the cities of Judah, and in the places round about Jerusalem; them also that burned incense to Baal, to the sun, and to the moon, AND TO THE PLANETS, and to all the host of heaven. 4. I neither said nor implied that there was an ice age on earth before the sun in my op. My proposal was that it was in ice before day one. I did say that the other planets, if existing then, would not have began melting until after the sun was created on day four, since the Holy Spirit, God's spirit was not operating on the planets-- only on earth. Your're right. fortunately, they hadn't been indoctrinated by some aspects of modern science, but they were inspired in what they wrote by the one who created it all What better source of information?! No, Genesis one is the chronological text and Genesis two is the detail text not relative to chronology. This has been, for a long time, the understanding of this by the majority of Biblical scholars. Yours is a liberal interpretation of the texts. This book has been my focus of prayerful study for 60 years now, since age 10, and I think I have a good handle on it's message and meaning. Keep at it, my friend, and hopefully it's inspiration agent, the Holy Spirit, will begin to enlighten you too, as you read it. This message has been edited by buzsaw, 03-15-2005 12:51 AM

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

no you're not paying attention. they have a different word for ice. had they wanted to say ice, they would have. that bit about god warming up his creation was poetic, but it's not what the text says. it says water -- liquid water -- surrounds everything. the heavens keep it out. later in chapter 6, god opens the windows of heaven and what comes out?rain. not snow. not hail. not ice cubes. rain. it's liquid. again, god's either stupid or a liar. i don't want to believe in a god that's either of those things. the model of the world in genesis chapter is an inside-out snow dome. the water's on the outside, flat land, dome of the sky. that's the picture it paints.so if god can't get little bits like "the world is spherical" right, when he created the darned thing... well. i'd just prefer to think the people got it wrong, and not god. because the fact is that it IS wrong. but it still has a chronological order, even if it doesn't count days.

quote:

---

Gen 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and [there was] not a man to till the ground.

​

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

​

Gen 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

---

so, to paraphrase:1. no plants.
2. man.
3. plants.
4. animals.genesis one goes:
1. land.
2. plants.
3. animals.
4. man.these two orders are not compatible. my understanding is NOT a liberal interpretation of the text, your's is. i'm not interpreting the text at all. i'm simply reporting what the text says. and the orders are in conflict. read it closely.in fact, people have KNOWN about this conflict for thousands of years. there have been a couple apologetic reasonings, but the most commonly accept scholarly view today is that for whatever reason the redactor didn't care becuase he had other priorities (such as the sanctity of existing texts).perhaps you should look a little more into what the biblical SCHOLARS say. not to be confused with preachers who've been to seminary. wow, i had pegged you as much younger. no, i'm sorry to say that you don't. i've only been studying it for a few years, and i gave up trying to rectify it with the real world LONG ago. it simply doesn't fit, and the textual evidence is that the people who wrote it didn't care. it's not a history, it's a collection of tradition.do yourself a favor, and find a bible-as-literature class. it's a really interesting book, once you get past the standard religous crap you think it says. you might find that the scholarly work that's been done for the last fifty years or so contradicts everything you thought about it.it was interesting in my last class on the subject to watch the fundamentalists squirm. the teacher, as it turns out, was far more literal than the literalists. he was concerned, like i, with what the book actually says, where it's problems really, and its context, regardless of his religion.you really do have to accept that it's just plain wrong in some cases, and that it quite often contradicts itself. it's an assembly of multiple sources, and those contradictions (such as between gen 1 and 2) are a good hint at where it changes sources. i set down the enlightment path almost at birth. i've been through every version and idea of the truth, from athiesm to fundamentalism, to apologistics. what you're spouting isn't new to me.i'm just explaining why i rejected the idea, and why it doesn't make sense.

Since I know you prefer the KJV here are Genesis 1:2-3 The text makes no mention of the temperature, or of ice, or of that ice being melted. Only liquid water is mentioned. Nor does the text mention the Holy Spirit making "decreasing entropic improvements/modifications" as you have it.Moreover if you want to claim that the ancient Israelites had a modern understanding of the planets you will need to do better than 2 Kings 23:5. Ancient cultures certainly distinguished planets from the "fixed" stars because they moved differently in the sky (the word "planet" itself is derived from this). However they did not realise the true nature of the stars or planets.I would also add that it is wrong to assume that the absence of the Sun justifies assigning an arbitrary day length prior ot that point. The creation of the Sun is not indicated as changing the length of the day/night cycle which is set up in Genesis 1:3-5. Accordingly a 24 hour cycle is the most reasonable reading.

Arach, I'm not going to allow you to bog this thread down with strawmen that waste my time and run these threads on with pages of yada. In the past I've been admonished by admin for adnausium repetitive stuff relative to my position and this nitpic strategy of yours, a good example of why it happens. Yes, I believe there is a word for ice in the Hebrew, but can correctly subsituted with water, as per context. It is also so interchanged on occasions in grammar today. Deltawerken - What is water?
... All forms of water are made of the same water molecule. All substances have
three forms: fixed, liquid and gas. This also goes for water, ...
http://www.deltawerken.com/What-is-water/341.htmlThe topic of this thread is not about Genesis chronologies, so don't want to get off on that, but the ambiguous statements of chapter two, including the word "generations" are relative to chapter one, needing to be interpreted relative to chapter one. It's clearly not intended to be chronological.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 03-15-2005 01:06 PM

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

quote:

---

It is also so interchanged on occasions in grammar today

---

Example?

it's NOT a strawmen. your argument is that the water of creation, in genesis 1, was really ice.but the text says water, and not ice. there's another word for ice. i'm not saying they didn't understand that ice was just frozen. they just have a different word for it, like we do. it's how we know which one we're talking about.if you go to a restaurant, and order some water, and they bring you a block of ice, aren't you gonna complain to the manager? what'll you do when he says "well, technically, my waiter DID bring you some water?" really? where?polar water caps?
water cubes?
water skating?
water cold?
waterbox?
watered tea? no this really isn't the place for it, and it's been discussed before. but you're completely ignoring the point, of course.edit: you're also ignoring the references to the structures referenced later in the book: the heavens and the waters of the heavens, and how the noah story indicates that the water HAS TO BE liquid.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 03-15-2005 05:59 PM

1. ......."earth's land and water," a phrase sometimes used at times, water including frozen water.2. "How much water is in the clouds?"3. "How much water does a cubic foot of ice contain?"4. Search "forms of water" on Google and you find multiple pages of "forms of water." Note forms ..... of ..... water5. I cited the link in my message above which uses the word generically as to form.Enough of this yada. How about we allow the Biblical authors the same leeway we take for ourselves in wording things? OK?

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

No I didn't. Go back and read carefully before posting. My proposal pertained to water before day one when the planet was in darkness as being ice. 1. Please stop repetitively ignoring my responses. I've already covered this.2. The text also clearly refers to the waters above the "expanse" as water when the context clearly implies vapor.
This's clearly a strawman and a dead horse you're beating. Get over it and move on. If you don't, don't be upset if I ignore you. OK? The flood water was clearly implicated from vapor which condensed. Nobody, but nobody has argued for a liquid ocean in the sky.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 03-15-2005 08:50 PM

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

I deduce from the text which states that there was darkness on the planet that a body in space with no light having water will have it in the form of ice. You may accept that or not, but that's the way the universe is, isn't it? They evidently knew them from stars, and that's significant. We don't know exactly how much the writers knew. 1. The implication is otherwise. No designation was given for length of evenings and mornings before day four.2. Imo, the wording, "the earth brought forth" pertaining to the plants indicates that day three was was likely longer than 24 hours.Btw, I'm not a King James fan. It's ok, but I've consistently stated that my user Bible is the 1901 ASV. That's why I use the name Jehovah often in discussion and debate. It's correctly in my Bible some 6000 times.Gen 1:2 uses the phrase, ".....earth was waste and void......" in ASV

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

shall i diagram sentances for you?"water [...] being ice"you're either arguing that the water in genesis 1, the deep, the waters above and below are referring to ice, or you are not. i have not ignored your post. you have dodged the important question. if they meant ice, and had a word for ice that meant a solid form of h20, why did they say "water" which means a liquid the other 578 times it's used? in fact, sometimes the word even means urine, which is slightly warm.unless, of course, you piss icicles. no. that's a creationist reading that tries to justify a worldwide flood. take a look at what the text says for a moment.

quote:

---

Gen 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

---

firmament. solid.here, god is creating a solid object, a ROOF over the land, to separate the waters. the water above is liquid, because look what happens when god punches some holes in said firmament:

quote:

---

Gen 7:11 ... and the windows of heaven were opened.
Gen 7:12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

---

so the water above has to be liquid. that's simply what the bible says. i don't care if doesn't describe the real world. no, it's not a strawman to clearly refute your points with other evidence. you can ignore me if you want, but i'll keep beating this horse because it proves that your point is wrong: it cannot have meant ice. yeah, looks silly now doesn't it. but it doesn't say "vapor canopy" or "condensation." it says a solid vault of the heavens, which keeps out the waters above. that's the function it is given in genesis 1.and it's not "in the sky." it's above the sky. actually, it's outside of the known universe. the sun, the moon, the stars, and the planets are all INSIDE this firmament of the heavens. this is very consistent with a pre-ptolemaic view of the universe, in an astronomically unaware society.but this whole vapor canopy business is not what's described in the bible. it's an attempt by creationists and apologists to rectify the bible with reality. and it fails, because such an object would break the laws of physics, and cook everything on the planet. not that everything being surrounded by water wouldn't -- but hey, that's what they wrote. it's just a story. and to quote you:

quote:

---

Get over it and move on

---